|
Post by sarmat on Jun 28, 2008 10:05:03 GMT 3
Well. Manchu conquest is quite different. Chinese were ruled by the Manchu dynasty and it were Manchu who organized and sponsored all the campaing. So, you can't really say that it were Chinese who defeated Dzhungars.
But here there is another point also. Xinjiang or Eastern Turkestan became effectively independent after the Grear Muslim rebellion in China in the 19th century. That time, the conquest of Xinjiang was conducted by the Chinese general, with Chinese army. So, the second time it would be fair to say that it was "proper" Chinese conquest.
Unlike the initial conquest of Siberia was sponsored by Russians and conducted by Russians.
This one point.
The point of my disagreement with you is however is that you claim that Cossacks in the 16th century were Tatars, while they were not.
Cossack "independent" identity is one thing, another thing is whether they were Tatars in the 16th century while all the historical evidence suggests that they were not.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 28, 2008 10:27:05 GMT 3
Cossack correction - sponsored by Russians - conducted by Cossacks.
Cossacks grew to become a multi-ethnic entity yes - I'm not denying that, same with the Manchu/Mongol expansion into East Turkistan - huge numbers of Han Chinese were used. You can't deny the similarity.
It's a fact that Cossacks were first Tatar mercs in service of the Tsars, right of conquest of Siberia goes to these Tatars and other Turks including the Slavic Cossacks who wished to join them. Not the Non-cossack Russians who inherited it years later and betrayed those who fought for their land. The non-Cossack Russians who are educated whom I've met reject being called Cossack.
Russia has tried many times to destroy Cossack identity and russify it, this is one thing I, like my family, does not like about Russia even though by percentage we are probably more Slavic then Tatar. Ne ways we are going in circles, good discussion but it's becoming repetitive.
It's going to be difficult to change each other's point of view, but I respect your opinion nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 28, 2008 11:01:46 GMT 3
Tatar mercenaries started to serve the Russian rulers much earlier. There was the whole Kasim Khanate near Moscow. Those Tatars leaved the Horde and provided military service for the Moscow princes.
Russia in fact didn't try to destroy Cossack identity as was already noticed here. Cossacks were a privileged class in the Imperial Russia, they were free from all the taxes and always had a prominent position in the Russian army.
Cossack in the Russian mind has always been associated with the bravery and unique fighting skills.
The only attempt to complitely eradicate "Cossack way of life" was done after the idiotic Bolshevik revolution. Cossacks were the most ardent supporters of the Whites. Many Cossacks were killed and suffered from repressions including many members of my family.
However, by the times of WWII Bolshevik propaganda gave up and the image of Cossack warrior was rehabilitated. So, many Cossacks fought in the War in special Red Army "Cossack formations."
Afte the war, the Cossack legend continued in the weird form of "Red Cossackdom." Although it was a very weird creature, but at least people were not afraid of their Cossack ancestry any more.
How would you define a Tatar? Is a person who has Russian name, thinks in Russian language and is a devoted adherent of Russian Orthodox Church a Tatar? Definetely not.
Even now "Russified Tatars" keep their original names and at least "formal" identity.
The features above relate to the Cossacks that explored Siberia and they don't show that they were Tatars.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 28, 2008 11:05:50 GMT 3
Then you've met your first
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 28, 2008 16:24:00 GMT 3
IMO, the most important would be to determine whether Cossacks themselves want to be considered a separate ethnicity. As long as the majority of them consider themselves Russians I don't think it's justifiable to force them think that they are not Russians. Self determination is the most important that's what I think. yes i agree with this and this is the basis of my argumentation. the point is, do not take modern Cossacks as reference but the historical Cossacks prior to the Soviet Union. many Cossacks either died in Gulags or fled the country. who remains? those days i can understand, they were persecuted for who they are and even though the image of Cossacks have been rehabilitated, it never became the same again and national identity in the SU, irregardless of origin was never encouraged. i think modern descendants of Cossack (i can't call them cossacks because they aren't) comfort themselves in claiming Russian nationality to regain some of the pats glory and status, they can't do that by followign their ancestors drive for independence and separate identity, it would onyl aggrivate the suspicion and hatred of the Russians.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 28, 2008 16:41:29 GMT 3
However, by the times of WWII Bolshevik propaganda gave up and the image of Cossack warrior was rehabilitated. So, many Cossacks fought in the War in special Red Army "Cossack formations." i have a new book about horses in warfare and it has some photos & info about those "Red Cossacks" in ww2. due to this and previous observations i have come to the conclusion that there actually were very few Cossacks in the Red Army, those formations that were called Cossacks actually were not Cossacks. first, look for example at those pictures of Kuban Cossacks at the Victory parade in Moscow. do they have the traditional Cossack haircut? no they don't. i have a lot of pictures of Cossacks in the werhmacht and many of them have the "Zhub" haircut. second evidence: on one of the new pictures i've seen Red "Cossack" horsemen with spurs. this is a very obvious sign that those horsemen, even though dressed like Cossacks, were not real Cossacks. the main difference between Russian and Cossack cavalry in Imperial Russia were: Russians used spurs, Cossacks used the nagaika whip in true Steppe tradition. other differences were, the shashka sabre of Cossacks had no hand-guard (on many photos you can see red "cossacks" with dragoon-type shashkas with hand-guard), cossacks carried their carbines on the right shoulder (regular cavalry on the left) and had no bayonettes for their carbines.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 28, 2008 16:48:21 GMT 3
Tatar mercenaries started to serve the Russian rulers much earlier. There was the whole Kasim Khanate near Moscow. Those Tatars leaved the Horde and provided military service for the Moscow princes. it was a little different however. the first ruler of this Qazim Qanate was pretedner to the throne of Qazan. Muscovy abused this rife in the throne-struggle and set up the pretender in a new vassal state bordering Kazan after he sought refugee with Muscovy. it is a typical example of how foreigners made use of the old divide & rule and abused rivalries in the Steppe to their own advantage. i completely agree with this, but it was a matter of czars policy. like Sübe'etei already noticed, Cossacks were more of allies to the Czar than real subjects of Russia.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 28, 2008 20:32:49 GMT 3
Your observation about the "Red Cossacks" outlooks are correct. The point is here that before the war Cossacks were prosectuted for any expression of "Cossackdom" haircut, cossack uniform were free tickets to Gulag. Every Cossack household had shashkas, but after Bolshevik took over shashkas literally were prohibited to keep as a specific "Cossack weapon."
All these was called "Decossackisation," so naturally after suddenly Stalin changed his mind regarding Cossacks it was very hard to restore all the authentic Cossack style right away. Besides, the old "Cossack" style still had a lot of association with the Old Imperial Russia.
However, despite the stupid uniforms and weapons, many Cossacks in the "Red Cossack" formations were in fact "natural Cossacks".
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 28, 2008 20:37:49 GMT 3
it was a little different however. the first ruler of this Qazim Qanate was pretedner to the throne of Qazan. Muscovy abused this rife in the throne-struggle and set up the pretender in a new vassal state bordering Kazan after he sought refugee with Muscovy. it is a typical example of how foreigners made use of the old divide & rule and abused rivalries in the Steppe to their own advantage. True. But before this policy was for centures used against Moscow and other Russian principalities by the Horde. So, it was not strange for Muscovy to took initiative in this game. Well, they did have a very broad autonomy and prominent position in the Russian society, but they still were Imperial subjects and not just "allies."
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 28, 2008 20:53:26 GMT 3
yes i agree with this and this is the basis of my argumentation. the point is, do not take modern Cossacks as reference but the historical Cossacks prior to the Soviet Union. many Cossacks either died in Gulags or fled the country. who remains? those days i can understand, they were persecuted for who they are and even though the image of Cossacks have been rehabilitated, it never became the same again and national identity in the SU, irregardless of origin was never encouraged. i think modern descendants of Cossack (i can't call them cossacks because they aren't) comfort themselves in claiming Russian nationality to regain some of the pats glory and status, they can't do that by followign their ancestors drive for independence and separate identity, it would onyl aggrivate the suspicion and hatred of the Russians. Temujin, I just don't understand why do you think that Russians are just filled of hate and suspicion to everybody? There is nothing "to aggravate" Nobody really hates Cossacks. "Cossack" has rather a very positive meaning for Russian. In fact, it was a vice versa since Cossacks always were a bit arrogant and view themselves as a kind of nobility compare to other Russians. But there is really no thins like "hate" etc. in this regard. And, in fact, I admit that some Cossacks do have the view similar to yours about the "separate identity" . But in any case, nobody chases the others for different views in Russia. The times of Gulag are gone many, many years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 29, 2008 1:02:59 GMT 3
To really understand Russian suspicion - live in my grandfather and grandmother's time. That is why my Slavic grandmother has both name and looks that identifies herself as ethnic Russian - the truth of her heart and ancestry however was passed down through family, and as a result I know FULL WELL that Russia does assimilate.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 29, 2008 1:13:13 GMT 3
Could you please tell more about your grandmothers story? Why did she have to make up her identity?
Russian culture is strong and it does assimilate, but it doesn't promote any "suspicion."
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 29, 2008 9:06:08 GMT 3
She didn't make up her tatar identity it was always there, roots which were passed down for generations. Now Russia wants to hold onto every inch of land they still have ever since the fall of the Soviet Union - Cossack independence is something that they sure as hell don't want to happen.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 29, 2008 9:52:02 GMT 3
What Russian authorities have to do with this at all?
First of all Cossacks actually were the creators of the "Russian state." The very purpose of Cossackdom was service to Russia and protection of its borders for centuries. Cossacks can't exist without Russia were their roots are. Even Cossacks who fought in WWII with Germans viewed it first of all as a liberation of Russia from the "Communist yoke" according to Shkuro himself and in this regard its even not important whether one considers them Russians or separate people.
What you write simply doesn't make any sense. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 29, 2008 13:59:20 GMT 3
1) Of course the Cossacks were creators of the "Russian state" 2) Cossack roots were from Turks who were living IN Russia. 3) Cossacks served Russia to protect its borders. 4) Cossacks fought in WW2 against Germans just like the Kalmyk Mongols. Does not make them Russian.
Russian authorities have been trying to russify everyone for generations
|
|